Napoleon's tomb was equal parts overwhelming and underwhelming. It seemed strange, at first, standing above the pit where his casket lay, that such a notable figure lay dead and motionless in a rather plain looking box. As I've mentioned, the sheer significance and pull of Napoleon made sense to me, why people like Marius and his father might be drawn to him, and why men like Marius' grandfather may be terrified of him. But not even the beautiful wall carvings could elevate him in his final state. In fact, they made him seem somehow weaker, as though he were somehow still pleading for significance, even though he had nothing to do with his burial site.
We visited the military museum afterwards, by far one of my favorite museums we’ve visited. Military history is fascinating to me, the sheer volume of pointless conflicts that have shaped history is terrifying, and the Napoleonic era is rife with the possibility of history changing at the slightest change. I got a real feel for how much of a game changer Napoleon was for France, beyond the simple fact that he won a lot. His changes to the military were significant, based on merit, and erased after his death.
The conflict between Monarchists and Bonapartists seems odd, beyond being carved deeply into subconscious bias and belief, as Napoleon seems like everything a monarchist would want, beyond circumstances of birth. Reading some of the history in the museum, and it showed all the failures of previous kings before we reached Napoleon. There were victories, yes, against a failing Spain, but many failures too. Failures that helped prompt the revolution. Marius’ grandfather being so utterly enshrined against Napoleon feels more comical the more I learn about the monarchy. Incompetency and decadence. And the Bourbons tried to repeat that. I thought it even stranger, that Napoleon III was elected by the Liberals, Victor Hugo included. Bonapartism seem like an easy pull for monarchists.
Speaking on ideology, I really don’t understand how someone could be loyal to the French state when it seemed the French state was always changing. Javert’s character is a fascinating one, but one that comes with questions. Unlike Marius, his grandfather, or even the ABC, Javert seems to have no loyalty beyond loyalty to the law. With Monarchism, you have reverence to the idea of Kings and bloodlines. With Bonapartism, you have loyalty to the perceived greatness of one man. Republicans believe in the people voting for their own interests. Javert has no pull to any of these, only the idea of the “law”. The greatness of dead men does not appeal to him, neither do the dreams of the future. Napoleon invented the civil code, so perhaps he’d have some reverence there, and yet his current loyalty is to the regime that replaced him. Javert crumbling under Jean Valjean’s kindness is one thing, but I wonder if he would break down regardless as France continued its back and forth between Republic and Empire.
Back to the subject of graves, I also visited the largest cemetery in Paris. Père Lachaise It was more of a personal mission, though perhaps relevantly I found quite a bit to do with French revolutionary sentiment. I visited Nestor Makhno's burial site, housed in a large building called the Columbarium. Really it was more of a covering than a building, but regardless, it housed an impressive number of deceased. I wandered for a while, taking in again, the humbling nature of death, before I found his. It was a small little square with a metal image of his face.
I should probably explain who he was, and how I found him particularly relevant. Similar to Napoleon, Nestor Makhno was a military leader emerging through revolution. Where they differ, is Makhno was an anarchist, while Napoleon declared himself emperor. He founded the Ukrainian Black Army, an agrian, yet leftist, worker’s revolutionary militia in conflict with both the Red and White Army’s of the Russian Civil War Whether Makhno would have kept his revolutionary leanings in event of victory isn’t something I can say– he didn’t win, and was exiled by the communists to Paris, ironically as Lenin once was.
But I found his relevancy to this class not just in his contrast to Napoloeon, but for what he stood for, and for what he still stands for. One thing about Paris, is that although their revolutions never truly succeed, they never really fail either. Victor Hugo makes it clear in Les Misérables that his view of history is that it always moves forward to some ideal utopia, even in times of great tyranny. That perspective makes sense for a Frenchmen to have, I think, because for progressive minded people in France, when you view the entire history, failed revolutions still inspire. They still make clear the demands of the people, and threaten the current hierarchy. Makhno’s grave, as small and insignificantly placed as it was, was covered in flowers, graffiti, and even a poster for a blogger advertising desertion for soldiers fighting in the current Ukranian-Russo war.
There are no anarchists in America, yet they still exist in France. I understood something about France at that moment, something about Paris. Revolution never dies there.
People try to kill it, though. 20,000 people were killed in the Paris commune, and next I found myself standing at the single most significant memorial for that massacre in Paris, and it was a plaque on a wall. Again, there were flowers, and I did see an old couple visit. But it was pathetic. All those people killed, some grand, mad dream, and all it gets is a plaque? But Napoleon III gets a grand tomb. It was baffling.
I thought back to the ABC students in Les Misérables. How varied they were, and relatable. How I saw myself in pieces of them, and tried to match who best I was in terms of my viewpoints. And then I thought about how in times of potential revolution, I probably would do something stupid and get killed, and hopefully get a plaque. I’d rather get a plaque, at least, than a sad looking box, or self-indulgent statue for people to gawk at.
